True Grit: Post Release Discussion - Page 3

Caught this a couple of days ago and really enjoyed it. I'd be really surprised if it wins Best Picture (although a nomination is likely), and I don't think it's the Coen's best picture, either. But darned if it isn't a really good film regardless.

Steinfeld was truly amazing, and I found myself riveted by her the entire film. Incredible that she could hold her own against such a heavyweight cast. I'm a huge Matt Damon fan, and I agree that his performance was a perfect counterweight to the more dynamic characters around him. Bridges was awesome, but I confess that I couldn't understand everything he said at times.

Everything involving haggling over horse prices, and creepy bearskin-clad medicine men, had me in stitches.

The ending was abrupt and pretty sad, but it worked...I knew Blackie would die, but it was still an upsetting moment. I wasn't at all surprised that Mattie was still unmarried. Besides the implication that LeBoeuf and Cogburn poisoned her romanticism, there's the more obvious issues of her sharp tongue and her missing arm. Unless she was pretty rich, most men on the "frontier" would undoubtedly take a dim view of a disabled wife who couldn't pull her weight.

Also, FWIW, we saw this on Monday afternoon and the theater was packed...although my husband & I were probably the only 2 people there under 60 years old, haha! Not so sure the Western is making a "comeback," at least not with most younger audiences...

Well, he starts off saying he was going to kiss her while she slept, then he can't wait to spank her ass. It's kind of a feat that we find their connection somewhat touching by the end.

Also a feat: every goddamn thing in this movie. Watching the Coens dialing back their quirkiness (and frequent, subtle disdain for their own characters) and just delivering such a near-perfect entertainment is a privilege. The language gave me Deadwood.

If your grandpa is still alive, this is the movie for both of you.

This here.

More of that sincerity please, boys. It doesn't bite.

There's not much I can add that hasn't already been covered by another Chewer. That being said, Bridges delivery of "Fill your hand your son of a bitch!" gave me chills.

Almost nearly lives up to "Skin that smokewagon and see what happens."

I've had more than one middle-aged guy come up to me and say "I took my father to see it and we both loved it."

This makes me feel warm inside for two reasons: (A) they're telling me this because they went to see it based on my review (various people read my stuff in the local weekly and sometimes comment on it); and (B) this has turned out to cross over to a very underserved demo, the man in his 60s to 70s. (Women in that demo get the shaft too, but at least they get the occasional romantic comedy or Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood. Guys in that demo don't get very many westerns or World War II movies any more. And neither of them get very much that would be palatable to their old-school sensibilities -- no nudity, excessive foul language, violence, etc. True Grit has its sanguinary moments but doesn't linger on them; the finger-chopping scene isn't Visser with his hand skewered to the windowsill.)

I actually got the impression, at the end, that she was pretty well-off by late 19th century standards. She'd proven that she had a great head for business, and I don't think her family was hurting to start with.

Just sayin'.

I just watched the original for comparison's sake. The Coen version is a lot closer than I remember. I haven't read the novel, but either the Coens made this with a great deal of respect for the original, or both were very faithful to the book.

I think there's genuine debate to be had as to whether Wayne or Bridges played the definitive Rooster Cogburn, but there's little doubt that Steinfeld and Damon run rings around their counterparts. Glen Campbell is especially painful to watch. I can't believe they handed such a significant role to a pop singer.

So which is better? Surprising nobody who knows me, I have to go with the Coen brothers. The finale of the original in particular shows a singular lack of focus, and really drags. I wouldn't be surprised if it were that alone that drove the Coens to a remake. It's still a great western, and certainly one of John Wayne's great roles, but I think the Coens improved on it.

My dad is going to murder me for saying that.

Hal Wallis' call, is my guess.

Just watched this again a second time. Solidified my liking of it.

Another point on Chaney:

Mattie comes to river and sees Chaney. Chaney pulls out his gun and approaches Mattie. Upon recognizing her, he puts his gun away and shows genuine concern for her well-being. I'm not sure if there's a point I'm trying to make, I just love how the main villain in the film is a tragic character, not really an evil one.

Also, Ned Pepper is still my favorite. The most intelligent and rational thinker in the whole movie in my opinion. They portray him as pretty honorable, and Rooster as pretty petty in some scenes. I think they're pointing out the fact it's a very thin line between the Law and the Outlaws.

My point is supported by one of my favorite lines by Cogburn

"Why were you in New Mexico?"

"I robbed a high interest bank. I never stole a citizens money though, never took a watch"

"It's all robbing, it's all the same"

"That's the position New Mexico took"

He may not be Chigurh or Grimsrud, but I wouldn't call Chaney tragic, he's just a dope always looking for the easy way out. In that sense he's the Jerry Lundegaard of this story, we just don't spend the same kind of time with him.

This hasn't really been an issue for me since Fargo; prior to that I wondered if one or both of the Coens were dealing with some deep-seated misanthropy. But plenty of their films have had genuinely sympathetic characters since, so when they keep them at arm's length or ridicule them, I know it's deliberate.

Incidentally, I noticed last night that a lot of the dialogue that people are praising appears almost word-for-word in the original film. I feel like people are giving the Coens too much credit for the dialogue. The real improvements here are technical filmmaking skill, and the directing of excellent actors.

A lot of the dialogue that people are praising appears almost word-for-word in the original book.

That was my suspicion, but since I haven't read it, I couldn't really go there.

Isn't that the case with No Country as well? It's with these adaptations that you really get to see how distinctive the Coen bros. style is and the nature of dialogue in general, that it's not just about what's written, but how it's delivered. They could have probably directed and cut the Transformers script without changing much and it would have at least sounded like a Coen bros. film.

I was just discussing this with a friend this morning. I wonder if they just choose material to adapt that matches their style, more than strongly bringing their style into it. Since I haven't read either book, I can't honestly say.

Both movies are scrupulously faithful to the books, right down to the treatment of Llewellyn Moss' fate.

I'd like to know this too. I don't know if this is true, so anyone can feel free to dispel it, but someone told me that the scene where Chigurh shoots at the bird is in the book, which I could not believe because it's such an immediate echo of Leonard Smalls shooting the lizard in Raising Arizona.

It's in the book.

It's certainly possible that they were fans of the book, and that the moment in Raising Arizona is an homage.

Edit:
Actually, I'm pretty sure the book isn't that old. I should look that up.

Edit Again:
Yeah, nevermind. Ignore comment.

I really like this thought.

I caught the film on New Year's Eve with some friends during a road trip to Mt. Rushmore I took with a couple of friends. The theater (Rushmore Cinemas!) was well-attended 7:25 showing and the South Dakota audience ate the film up.

As for me, I really enjoyed the film but felt I would've enjoyed it a lot more if I had been able to understand more of Cogburn's dialog (along with Bear Dentist). Loved the performances and the classical nature of the filmmaking. This is a film with characters I would love to see more of.

About the ending, I was also a little put off by the close-ups of Cogburn and Mattie riding Blackie. I'm not certain of the technique that was used, but it definitely made me think of similar shots of Eowyn and Merry in ROTK. I don't mind the general artificiality of it. I understand that it goes with the change in tone as the film approaches its end. It's that the fake motion blur in those shots feel so wrong to me. I'd almost prefer it if they just did it with old-fashioned rear projection.

A moment when my heart swelled: Mattie defies the adults and takes Blackie across the river.

I didn't mind the end. I felt like Mattie, confused and delirious and in an almost dream state.

I thought it was pretty well done, I don't understand everybody's problem with it.

To me, that sounds too much like the "It's supposed to look bad!" excuse. I know that's not what you're going for. If it didn't bug you, it didn't bug you. It would be silly for me to try to convince you otherwise.

My immediate reaction was that I found the effect a bit distracting when everything else about the film was good. As such, instead of seeing the effect and feeling it enhanced Mattie's state of mind, it just made me think that the effect wasn't executed as well as it could have been.

But maybe I am too much of a stickler for such things at times. I have a friend who recently saw Tron and thought the digital Jeff Bridges was very convincing. I thought it looked shoddy from the one or two shots I saw in the trailers.

Anyway, enough picking at this minor thingy.

When I watched it a second time, I specifically looked for the shots you guys were saying looked bad, but I still couldn't see them at the end.

I dunno, your opinion is obviously valid if so many people think so, but I just don't see it.

I agree with the "not debating" it thing though, I suppose it falls to personal opinions.

This isn't meant as a personal swipe, mcnooj, but I've often felt that modern audiences have a very low threshold for artificiality. There was a time (and clearly the Coens still believe in this) when filmmakers would intentionally allow a certain amount of unreality to a scene. Modern audiences don't seem to want to tolerate it. They see it as simply "bad special effects". Anything less than complete photorealism is unacceptable. I find it a little sad that people want to take that tool away from filmmakers.

Naw, yours is definitely a valid point. Even moreso, as I recently re-read Devin's "Tyranny of Realism" piece, which I completely agree with. The best I can do in trying to separate myself from the modern audiences you refer to is that I certainly don't mind artificiality (SPEED RACER!). In the case of True Grit, it's simply the type of it. As I mentioned before, I would've almost preferred that the Coens went all out and went for old-school rear-projection.

The motion-blur thing is something I've been particularly sensitive to ever since I've heard Brad Bird moan about it when it came to computer animation. I'm not sure where the technology is at now, but motion-blur added in post-production can't do arcs. If not handled just right, the motion blur (which should look natural) looks 'wrong' as opposed to heightened.

Now I have to take into consideration that those shots may not have added any kind of motion blur at all!!!

It's a third-rate Coen Brothers film, through and through. Which only proves how good the Coen Brothers are, because it's pretty damn good. But it's certainly not No Country good. I wouldn't even call it Burn After Reading good. It's a really solid and well-made piece of entertainment. I probably had my expectations too high, but it's certainly not one of the best films of the year. Best Hollywood films, sure, but the only real competition there is Inception and Scott Pilgrim. Maybe The Social Network.

But then again, I'm not as hot on westerns as a lot of people around here seem to be. In an era where so few get made, I understand the excitement when something that's really truly good come down the pipeline, even if it's not a capital G Great film. I'm a horror fan. It's been two years since that happened to me (The Strangers, holla!).

Above everyone else, Roger Deakins shines. My only real faults with the film are the third act (OH NO, SNAKES!) and the music, which was too overbearing for my tastes. Everything else was very good.

Oh, I completely forgot to mention...

This wasn't rated R!? I thought for sure the violence in the cabin scene would guarantee it that much. Chopped fingers and what was basically a head shot. Color me surprised.

The MPAA has been amazing recently. I watched Friday the 13th: Part V recently, and I'm stunned at what had to be cut out of those movies. Sure, at that time reacting against slasher films was a political move, but I had forgotten how good we have it now.

At the same time, we have The King's Speech which is basically a PG movie given an R because Colin Firth spouts off a few F-bombs out of frustration in a few scenes. Unlike the case of True Grit, it doesn't surprise me, but it does annoy me.

I agree it's not the Coen's best but:

I can't even begin to understand this. I mean, I liked Burn After Reading and I'd still put True Grit miles beyond it.

Burn After Reading is still my favorite Brad Pitt film ever though.

I say "Aww, that's cool." at least three times a day, without fail. Honestly.

Burn After Reading is one of the funniest movies of the decade, and pretty great satire to boot. It's not one of their masterpieces (Barton Fink, Fargo, Big Lebowski, No Country, possibly A Serious Man) but it's damn close. I'm aware I'm in the minority here and that's fine. Comedy can be tricky like that.

True Grit is highly entertaining but has a really weak third act, an ending that feels forced, and nothing else on it's mind. It's truly solid entertainment in a year where people feel that A-Team passes for solid entertainment, but as far as the Coens are concerned, it's one of their weaker efforts. I'd rank it above Ladykillers, Intolerable Cruelty, and The Man Who Wasn't There, but below their rest.

Phase one in the development of any serious film enthusiast should be to get beyond genre. Being "not hot" on a particular genre is a good way to rob yourself of some of the cinematic greats, no matter which genre you're eliminating.

I'm sorry if that sounds lectury, but I really feel strongly that that should be a goal for anybody dealing with any art form.

Are you implying that most people here like horror and Merchant Ivory films an equal amount? That they devour romantic comedies and action films with the same fervor? We all pick favorites. I'm a sucker for a slasher. I'm not too hot on epics. I like rap music more than rock music. I like both.

Stagecoach is one of my favorite movies, as is The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly. But given the choice between a middling Western and a middling horror film, I'd choose the latter. I get the feeling that many here would choose the former. That's what I meant.

I don't mean to troll but I really wish the suckfest for this movie would just stop already. It's not that good.

I get where you're coming from then. I'd go for the middling martial arts film myself.

Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

Really? I like Burn too, but it's got to go up against Seven, Fight Club, The Assassination of Jesse James, and Inglorious Bastards, for starters. Plus he's got stylish larks like Snatch and the Ocean's movies and great supporting turns in 12 Monkeys and True Romance, any of which I might take over what I consider a lesser effort from the bros depending on my mood.

Say what you will about the man's performances (I think he almost always makes entertaining choices, but will grant that he's no chameleon), but he has one of the most consistently strong filmographies of any living actor.

As for Grit, I thought it was immensely entertaining if uncharacteristically straightforward for the Coens. I might call it a disappointment if the cast didn't knock every scene so far out of the park. Not quite the best of the year (I give that nod to Winter's Bone), but a strong contender. I was sort of appalled to see Patrick placing it on par with The Strangers, but then I took a deep breath and reminded myself that I haven't even seen that one, and maybe it's actually, like, crazy good.

I need to see it again (hello, Tuesday with nothing else to do), but I too am of the opinion that it's not among the Coen's best. It's damn, damn good though, and I think that means that the Coens are just fantastic, as in the greatest living directors.

Patrick man, you've gotta rethink your opinion on "The Man Who Wasn't There". It's weird and hilarious and violent. In a lot of ways, it the Coens starting their first steps back after whatever happened with the Lady Killers.

Also, I'd like to repeat the love for "A Serious Man". I think it's my favorite Coen film.

You don't mean to troll. But you're saying that we're all sucking off an undeserving movie?

Sounds like trolling to me. But really, thanks. Now I know that I can ignore you from now on.

Yeah, especially since The Man Who Wasn't There was pre-Lady Killers dipshit.

I've never really understood why that movie is so universally loved. Other than The Ladykillers, it seems like the least re-visitable Coen movie. I'm not saying it's bad, just confused, misguided and (at times) downright mean spirited. I like the photography, but I don't find it meaningful, resonate, funny or horrific. I just think it's confusing and bland.

That's right. I like Intolerable Cruelty over The Man Who Wasn't There. Sue me.

Personally, I don't see any point in arguing the relative positions of Coen films, or even in ranking them at all. In their entire history, they've made one film that I didn't think was at least very good. That's pretty damn phenomenal. We all seem to agree that The Ladykillers belongs on the bottom. Outside of that, I don't feel strongly enough to argue with rankings, since I love them all to some degree.

I honestly didn't mean this derail, but let's see it through.

I like The Man Who Wasn't There. But not as much as Blood Simple, Hudsucker Proxy, Raising Arizona, Miller's Crossing, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Fargo, Barton Fink, The Big Lebowski, Burn After Reading, A Serious Man, No Country For Old Men or True Grit.

A look the films I just listed serves to reinforce my point that third-tier Coen Brothers is still pretty fucking good.

EDIT: And Scwartz, it wasn't the best analogy. I found The Strangers to be a highly effective genre piece without a whole lot of meaning behind it. Same with True Grit. Didn't mean to compare quality.

Oops! Apologies for having my time line wrong.

You're still a giant douche canoe though.

Intolerable Cruelty has its defenders, at least in civilized corners of the net.

As for rankings, the best I can do is tiers.

Masterpieces - No Country, Miller's Crossing, O Brother, Lebowski

Mere Triumphs - A Serious Man, Fargo, Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, Barton Fink

Hell Of A Lot Of Fun - Burn, True Grit, Cruelty

Haven't seen Hudsucker, Ladykillers, or Man Who Wasn't There. But any one of those third tier flicks would be the highlight of almost any other director's resume.

Burn After Reading isn't his best role, but it's my favorite, he's just such a goofball. I laugh consistently every time he's on screen, just the way he presents himself. "I got his numbah, I got his numbah."

Saw this Friday afternoon with my older daughter (who just happens to be Mattie's age). Absolutely loved it. It's been decades since I've seen the original, and I haven't read the book; nevertheless, this did not feel at all like the Wayne movie, if memories are any guide. So much of that is because Wayne was essentially playing Wayne doing Rooster. There was no escaping Wayne's persona or legend. Bridges disappears into the role, and I can easily forget it's Bridges.

I also have to agree that the performances were uniformly excellent, and outside of the showcase roles for Bridges and Steinfeld, most of them were nicely understated.

Someone else pointed out Chaney's line of "Everything's against me." What I think was magic about this is that, combined with Brolin's delivery and performance, we get a whole of characterization in one line.

Won't bother trying to rate this against the Coen's canon; first, I haven't seen all of their films, and second, I don't really care. Loved this film and as others have said, I loved the sincerity evident.

Also loved the score. I don't know if it was sadness inherent in that, if it was the underlying melancholy of the story, or because I'm such a sap for anything father-daughter (and this was about Mattie both revenging her father and finding surrogates), but in addition to simply being entertained and engaged, I found myself deeply moved by the film. I can't explain it, and it was certainly a very subjective reaction.

I hope it gets a Best Picture nod; I can understand the arguments for saying it's not (other films are more layered, more complex and arguably represent greater filmmaking achievements) but it works so well and is so uniformly excellent, I can't help but want it to be recognized.

I'm with you; BURN and INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS are my favorite Pitt roles, though I won't argue their his best acting. Both are just compulsively watchable and hilarious.